Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Actually it's based on the fact that successive governments have shown outright contempt for science.
    No they have not.

    The tories have tried to reduce funding and the lib dems had to put a block on that,
    That the government did not cut the science budget at a time when every other department except the NHS and foreign aid was being cut does not seem to me to be strong evidence that the government will cut the budget in future.

    while also appointing David "Awesome power of the moon" Tredinnick, a man who has previously insisted that surgeons shouldn't operate when the moon is full because blood won't clot then (basically a dribbling idiot) to the HoC Select Health Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. Blairs labour took an approach that could best be described as policy based evidence, rejecting the evidence if it didn't support what they wanted to do, and in some cases (Professor Nutt) sacking the scientists for not providing the evidence they wanted. When a succession of governments have refused to give science the time of day, it getting it's funding back up to EU levels after we leave is vanishingly unlikely.
    I agree that political funding implies political control and therefore political distortion. That is the Faustian pact you make when you accept political funding. But you are arguing in favour of political funding here, so you have no cause to complain, and this whole strand is irrelevant.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Observatory)
    No they have not.


    That the government did not cut the science budget at a time when every other department except the NHS and foreign aid was being cut does not seem to me to be strong evidence that the government will cut the budget in future.


    I agree that political funding implies political control and therefore political distortion. That is the Faustian pact you make when you accept political funding. But you are arguing in favour of political funding here, so you have no cause to complain, and this whole strand is irrelevant.
    So trying to cut funding, sacking scientists for not producing evidence that agreed with their opinions and appointing psuedoscientists to important committees on science isn't showing contempt?



    Also, it may have escaped your notice, but the Lib Dems, who prevented the budget cut, aren't in government now. The tories, who tried the budget cut, are.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    So trying to cut funding, sacking scientists for not producing evidence that agreed with their opinions and appointing psuedoscientists to important committees on science isn't showing contempt?

    Cutting funding in the middle of the Great Recession showed no more contempt for science than for the armed forces, the unemployed, school children, road maintenance workers, cleaners in government offices, and any of a thousand other groups. Perhaps the government really had contempt for all these people or perhaps it had a reason for wanting to stabilise the country's finances that was not related to contempt for the public. On your evidence, the government failed to cut this funding, despite succeeding most other places, which would demonstrate if anything that the UK government of the time treated science with special respect.

    For the rest, as I said, you take state funding and you accept that the state can fire people for political reasons and appoint quacks if it wants. Don't like it? Don't accept state funding. It's a debate that should be had but you are arguing for more state funding here.

    Also, it may have escaped your notice, but the Lib Dems, who prevented the budget cut, aren't in government now. The tories, who tried the budget cut, are.
    We also don't have a 10+ ppt budget deficit now.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woodchuck)
    aw diddums.

    just in case you didnt know, 16-17 year olds aren't allowed to vote in general elections either. does that mean 'The country has not spoken' in every general election since that rule was established? presumably not, unless you happen to agree with the result.

    with your utter contempt for democracy, why not move to Russia or North Korea? this is the UK and we respect democractic processes.
    This doesn't even deserve a response. See my other posts if you can be bothered to see why 16 and 17 year olds absolutely deserved the vote.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Our military forces, the Army, Navy, RAF have been decimated through lack of funding, our brave men and women are poorly equipped.

    Our police forces have been dwindled to nothing, funding slashed

    Our justice system has been utterly corrupted with criminals getting off scott free or with ridiculously small sentences for ages now

    Our NHS has been driven to the brink, systematically, purposefully.

    And you want to make a case for Science?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Cutting funding in the middle of the Great Recession showed no more contempt for science than for the armed forces, the unemployed, school children, road maintenance workers, cleaners in government offices, and any of a thousand other groups. Perhaps the government really had contempt for all these people or perhaps it had a reason for wanting to stabilise the country's finances that was not related to contempt for the public. On your evidence, the government failed to cut this funding, despite succeeding most other places, which would demonstrate if anything that the UK government of the time treated science with special respect.For the rest, as I said, you take state funding and you accept that the state can fire people for political reasons and appoint quacks if it wants. Don't like it? Don't accept state funding. It's a debate that should be had but you are arguing for more state funding here.We also don't have a 10+ ppt budget deficit now.
    How exactly was science show special respect, it took intervention by the Lib Dems to stop it being screwed over as per usual. As for the crap about state funding meaning accepting state intervention, are you really determined to ignore the reality that the state is anti-science? And we're asking for more state funding, because the underinvestment by the state has been criminal, and you've just voted to get rid of the funding we were getting from an organisation that actually understood the necessity of scientific research.

    (Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
    And you want to make a case for Science? For what? To make more horrific vaccines like the Flu Jab which can be pushed out to an unwitting and mislead population in order to damage their health and sell pharmaceuticals?


    For the record, Britain is a world leader in science and research, it's one of the few things we do very very well, and is in reality important to everything around us. A Britain in which our research is massively diminished means a Britain which is a shadow of what it was.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    For the record, Britain is a world leader in science and research, it's one of the few things we do very very well, and is in reality important to everything around us. A Britain in which our research is massively diminished means a Britain which is a shadow of what it was.
    Britain is already a shadow of what it was, its been like that for years. We used to manufacture things, we used to have good services, a good health service and good resources. The stream of prime ministers have made it dependent on foreign powers instead of it being self-sufficient.

    Big Pharma is ruining people's lives on a daily if not hourly basis, selling potions and pills that are harmful, expensive and wholly unnecessary. The corrupt powers that be have even fraudulently passed laws to prevent ordinary people having access to the wonderful cures that Nature herself provides. Try getting Apricot Kernels in the US for example.

    The population is generally sick, obese and heading for early death. This is largely because of the stuff being put into our food and water, because of the corrupt labelling laws which allow corrupt companies to hide the true ingredients in their bad products and because of the sugar conglomerates who force high sugar content into almost every food.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    How exactly was science show special respect, it took intervention by the Lib Dems to stop it being screwed over as per usual.
    "Screwed over" here meaning being treated like any other line item on the budget.

    As for the crap about state funding meaning accepting state intervention, are you really determined to ignore the reality that the state is anti-science?
    States are intrinsically anti-science in that states are point centres of power whereas science is a method that is based on freedom to make claims coupled with independent verification of those claims. This is a problem for state funding of science, but I don't see the relevance to this debate, as you are not arguing against state funding of science.

    And we're asking for more state funding, because the underinvestment by the state has been criminal, and you've just voted to get rid of the funding we were getting from an organisation that actually understood the necessity of scientific research.
    Is your position that current funding levels are too low or that Brexit will lead to lower funding levels? I am talking about the second claim, as it is the topic of this thread. I see no evidence for that claim although it is one possibility among many.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    This doesn't even deserve a response. See my other posts if you can be bothered to see why 16 and 17 year olds absolutely deserved the vote.
    The government we voted into power democratically decided not to give 16 and 17 years olds the vote in a decision of 303 against 253 MPs . Yet you have seem no problem in suggesting that the same government should defy the decision of the British people regarding the EU. You basically only seem to support democracy when it suits you.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
    Britain is already a shadow of what it was, its been like that for years. We used to manufacture things, we used to have good services, a good health service and good resources. The stream of EU puppet prime ministers have systematically destroyed it all to make the UK weak, to make it dependent on foreign powers and to effectively bring it to its knees, pretty much treason on every level.

    Big Pharma is ruining people's lives on a daily if not hourly basis, selling potions and pills that are harmful, expensive and wholly unnecessary. The corrupt powers that be have even fraudulently passed laws to prevent ordinary people having access to the wonderful cures that Nature herself provides. Try getting Apricot Kernels in the US for example.

    The population is generally sick, obese and heading for early death. This is largely because of the stuff being put into our food and water, because of the corrupt labelling laws which allow corrupt companies to hide the true ingredients in their bad products and because of the sugar conglomerates who force high sugar content into almost every food.

    Everything that is wrong with the world stems from this greed and corruption by a wealthy elite minority who have seized control of our natural resources, our finance systems and our justice/police and military.
    Absolute psuedoscientifical nonsense. Naturopathy is utter quackery - the medicines derived from natural sources are now easily available in much safer forms.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Observatory)
    "Screwed over" here meaning being treated like any other line item on the budget.
    Or rather meaning being criminally underfunded to start with (as a proportion of GDP, investment in research in the UK is one of the lowest in the developed world) and then being targeted again with no appreciable savings possible from doing so.

    Is your position that current funding levels are too low or that Brexit will lead to lower funding levels? I am talking about the second claim, as it is the topic of this thread. I see no evidence for that claim although it is one possibility among many.
    Both. Domestic funding is far, far too low, and when research in the UK has been a net beneficiary of EU funding, Brexit is going to see it lose funding (to maintain current levels of the £350m a week, everything currently sent back by the EU would have to go where it already was, then from the ~£190m another significant chunk would need to be taken to the research budget).
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Absolute psuedoscientifical nonsense. Naturopathy is utter quackery - the medicines derived from natural sources are now easily available in much safer forms.

    Absolutely no nonsense whatsoever. A food stuff that Nature produces herself, naturally, is a free and healthy part of life. Only utter evil would forcibly prevent humans from having access to Nature's produce. Can you imagine if the authorities passed a law to prevent the import and sale of Oranges in your country? That would be an act of war against humanity. An act of evil.

    Apricot kernels are produced by Nature. So are cherries, so are loads of things. YOU might not personally believe that eating Apricot Kernels has any health benefit, or for that matter eating oranges or lemons or cherries. But you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to stop other humans from choosing to eat them.

    In the USA however, they have seen to it that shops are not allowed to stock and sell Apricot Kernels. Why? Because it eats into the mega profits they make from expensive treatments and drugs.
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    The thing is, when you deprive 16 and 17 year olds of the right to vote yet give it to 85 year olds, and the Leave vote wins by a 52% majority, out of a 72% turnout of eligible citizens, then recognise that at least 10% of leave voters are now terrified because they didn't expect their side to win, it becomes very undemocratic.

    The country has not spoken. Leave voters do not speak for the 48% of people who voted Remain. They do not speak for me.
    Thats democracy for you.
    Deal with it, you wouldn't be acting like this if it was the other way around.
    In 1975, people were 16 & too young to vote, they voted to stay in the EU. So for 41 years, older people decided there future.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
    Absolutely no nonsense whatsoever. A food stuff that Nature produces herself, naturally, is a free and healthy part of life. Only utter evil would forcibly prevent humans from having access to Nature's produce. Can you imagine if the authorities passed a law to prevent the import and sale of Oranges in your country? That would be an act of war against humanity. An act of evil.

    Apricot kernels are produced by Nature. So are cherries, so are loads of things. YOU might not personally believe that eating Apricot Kernels has any health benefit, or for that matter eating oranges or lemons or cherries. But you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to stop other humans from choosing to eat them.

    In the USA however, they have seen to it that shops are not allowed to stock and sell Apricot Kernels. Why? Because it eats into the mega profits they make from expensive cancer treatments and drugs. It is immoral and evil at its worst. The same will happen in the UK if we let it. Getting ourselves out of the EU stops this kind of fraudulent tyranny.
    Deadly Nightshade is produced by nature. It being natural doesn't make it safe, and apricot kernels present a real danger of cyanide poisoning: https://thechronicleflask.wordpress....ricot-kernels/

    Stopping people from poisoning themselves isn't a big pharma conspiracy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BioGeek)
    Thats democracy for you.
    Deal with it, you wouldn't be acting like this if it was the other way around.
    In 1975, people were 16 & too young to vote, they voted to stay in the EU. So for 41 years, older people decided there future.
    I've already provided many reasons as to why this wasn't democratic and I'm not repeating myself, read through my other posts if you care.

    I advocated a vote for 16 and 17 year olds long before negotiations for this referendum came into existence, but I'm bringing it up now more than ever because it's so pertinent to the situation at hand. If 16 year olds were more likely to be Brexiters I would still be arguing for their right to vote, don't be so presumptuous.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Deadly Nightshade is produced by nature. It being natural doesn't make it safe, and apricot kernels present a real danger of cyanide poisoning:
    Sorry but that's a typical disinfo article. It can't even get its facts right about the cyanide compound in amygdalin which is Hydrogen-Cyanide, not Potassium-Cyanide.

    Every food stuff is toxic and potentially fatal if you eat/drink too much of it. This includes water. Drink too much and you will kill yourself. Yet we don't have laws preventing us from drinking and selling water do we? Neither do we have laws preventing the sale of cherries or cherry liqueurs which equally have high levels of hydrogen-cyanide. It's nothing short of state sponsored suppression of a natural cure in order to support sales of Big Pharma treatments.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
    Sorry but that's a typical disinfo article. It can't even get its facts right about the cyanide compound in amygdalin which is Hydrogen-Cyanide, not Potassium-Cyanide.

    Every food stuff is toxic and potentially fatal if you eat/drink too much of it. This includes water. Drink too much and you will kill yourself. Yet we don't have laws preventing us from drinking and selling water do we? Neither do we have laws preventing the sale of cherries or cherry liqueurs which equally have high levels of hydrogen-cyanide. It's nothing short of state sponsored suppression of a natural cure in order to support sales of Big Pharma treatments.
    It doesn't say apricot kernels contain potassium cyanide, it mentions that potassium cyanide is poisonous as a result of the cyano group, and that amygdalin has a cyano group liberated by enzymatic activity. Actually as well, the idea that it's a cancer treatment has been tested and the results suggest it's ineffective: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2F14651858.CD005476.pub3

    Your conspiracy theories are completely baseless, naturopathy is completely unproven and the idea that cherry stones or apricot kernels cure anything is pure hearsay.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah I forgot that Switzerland had no scientific research programmes. Having said that, I agree with your disappointment at what has essentially been an anti-intellectual movement. Cause that always ends well.............
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsphysics91)
    As a UK science student I voted out because I wanted to de-cuck myself from the EU
    You sound like a future titan in the world of scientific breakthroughs and enlightenment,............
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    Why do Brexiters hate facts and knowledge so much?
    perhaps they have lower bandwidth than the rest of us ?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.